Post the Experiment

[Crick]

How is it that this could have been discussed as many times as it has been but you still seem to have no grasp whatsoever on the position of mainstream science with regards to Koch and Angstrom. The only errors Koch made were caused by his relatively crude instrumentation. The error of the whole thing - the point which mainstream science beginning with Hurlbert have refuted, was ANGSTROM's interpretation of Koch's results. If atmospheric CO2 behaved as Angstrom thought it did, the surface of the Earth would be close to the temperature of the surface of the sun. All of the heat radiated by the Earth's surface would be trapped in the first few meters while more and more solar radiation poured in. Does that sound like the reality with which you're familiar?

And, I know this is an old question, but if you want to take the common denier interpretation of Angstrom - that the greenhouse effect wrt CO2 is saturated and that adding more has had no effect, please explain what HAS caused the warming of the last 150 years?

 

[jc456]

How is it that this could have been discussed as many times as it has been but you still seem to have no grasp whatsoever on the position of mainstream science with regards to Koch and Angstrom. The only errors Koch made were caused by his relatively crude instrumentation. The error of the whole thing - the point which mainstream science beginning with Hurlbert have refuted, was ANGSTROM's interpretation of Koch's results. If atmospheric CO2 behaved as Angstrom thought it did, the surface of the Earth would be close to the temperature of the surface of the sun. All of the heat radiated by the Earth's surface would be trapped in the first few meters while more and more solar radiation poured in. Does that sound like the reality with which you're familiar?

And, I know this is an old question, but if you want to take the common denier interpretation of Angstrom - that the greenhouse effect wrt CO2 is saturated and that adding more has had no effect, please explain what HAS caused the warming of the last 150 years?

the sun.

 

[mamooth]

jc, what happened to your claims that all the warming was faked?

You keep forgetting which lies you just told. Can you settle on just kook conspiracy theory?

 

[jc456]

jc, what happened to your claims that all the warming was faked?

You keep forgetting which lies you just told. Can you settle on just kook conspiracy theory?

dude, dudette, me thinks you walk around with climate boots on all day. You should take them off and let your feet breathe, it's messing with your head.

The first thing about debating is to know what it is you're debating. I answered a question, for all I know it was a hypothetical question, but the earth has been warming for billions of years, and that is due to the sun. No time frame was given.

Second, it would behoove you to present evidence that CO2 adds heat after reaching 280 PPM of CO2 if you wish to banter with me. TO DATE, you fail.

BTW, any day!!!!!

 

[Crick]

Second, it would behoove you to present evidence that CO2 adds heat after reaching 280 PPM of CO2 if you wish to banter with me. TO DATE, you fail.

Here you go jc, not just evidence, PROOF

 

[jc456]

Second, it would behoove you to present evidence that CO2 adds heat after reaching 280 PPM of CO2 if you wish to banter with me. TO DATE, you fail.

Here you go jc, not just evidence, PROOF

Is that an experiment? You got one for 120 PPM CO 2? The experiment we asked for?

 

[jc456]

ok, so today is July 30th 2015, and still today, no warmer has posted up any rationale to what 120 PPM of CO2 can do. None, thanks Herr Koch for leading the way in 1901. The warmers have never been able to debunk your experiment.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Second, it would behoove you to present evidence that CO2 adds heat after reaching 280 PPM of CO2 if you wish to banter with me. TO DATE, you fail.

Here you go jc, not just evidence, PROOF

proof of what? This does not show thermal lapse rates.. Do you even have a clue what it is your posting? This is a spectral breakdown of thermal energy in the light spectrum. This doesn't prove what you think it does.

 

[Crick]

That is NOT a "spectral breakdown of thermal energy in the light spectrum." You're the one who doesn't seem to have a clue what I posted. It is the absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide superimposed on the spectrum of incoming solar radiation and that of outgoing IR (the S-B curves for the Earth's temperature) That is proof that CO2 absorbs portions of the IR spectrum that impinges on it in our atmosphere and that absorption makes its temperature rise. Proof.

 

[jc456]

That is NOT a "spectral breakdown of thermal energy in the light spectrum." You're the one who doesn't seem to have a clue what I posted. It is the absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide superimposed on the spectrum of incoming solar radiation and that of outgoing IR (the S-B curves for the Earth's temperature) That is proof that CO2 absorbs portions of the IR spectrum that impinges on it in our atmosphere and that absorption makes its temperature rise. Proof.

sure, you go with that. We, the experts, know better.

 

[Crick]

I'm sorry jc, but neither you, nor Billy Bob nor Frank seem to know diddly squat. Solar radiation arrives with the SW spectrum displayed on the lower left. It is absorbed by land and water and then reradiated with the LW spectrum shown on the lower right. The other traces show the absorption spectra of various gas combinations including the total atmosphere. Billy Bob's error was failing to note ABSORPTION and his fantasy nonsense about "thermal energy in the light spectrum". Spectrum provide relationships between frequencies and spectral levels or frequencies and spectral absorption rates. There is no distinction made in those diagrams for the "thermal energy in the light spectrum". From a purely technical standpoint, the term "thermal energy" refers to internal energy of a body and has nothing to do with the transmitted energy which is all we're talking about here.

 

[jc456]

I'm sorry jc, but neither you, nor Billy Bob nor Frank seem to know diddly squat. Solar radiation arrives with the SW spectrum displayed on the lower left. It is absorbed by land and water and then reradiated with the LW spectrum shown on the lower right. The other traces show the absorption spectra of various gas combinations including the total atmosphere. Billy Bob's error was failing to note ABSORPTION and his fantasy nonsense about "thermal energy in the light spectrum". Spectrum provide relationships between frequencies and spectral levels or frequencies and spectral absorption rates. There is no distinction made in those diagrams for the "thermal energy in the light spectrum". From a purely technical standpoint, the term "thermal energy" refers to internal energy of a body and has nothing to do with the transmitted energy which is all we're talking about here.

dude, well there is one easy way to get to a solution, show us. Let's see this miracle of your spectrometer. I read the instructions on line and it doesn't explain your statement as such. So are you lying?

Let's see the language from their web site that states what you wrote. if you can't, you're just a liar.

 

[Crick]

Let's look at the diagram jc. Read the axes

Each of the four sections of the vertical axis are labeled from 0 to 100. It's lacking a text label unfortunately, but I'm quite certain we can find one that does. The vertical labeling only applies to the gas absorption spectra, not to the spectra of incoming SW and outgoing LW (they don't line up in any case). The horizontal axis is labeled "WAVELENGTH (Microns)" and runs logarithmically, from 0.1 to 100. If you care to accept that the vertical axis is simply percent absorbed, then the graph displays percent absorbed versus wavelength.

You have once again accused me of lying without presenting a shred of evidence. Show us the website which you claim says something different or withdraw your accusation or be known, at best, as someone with ethical shortcomings.

 

[jc456]

Let's look at the diagram jc. Read the axes

Each of the four sections of the vertical axis are labeled from 0 to 100. It's lacking a text label unfortunately, but I'm quite certain we can find one that does. The vertical labeling only applies to the gas absorption spectra, not to the spectra of incoming SW and outgoing LW (they don't line up in any case). The horizontal axis is labeled "WAVELENGTH (Microns)" and runs logarithmically, from 0.1 to 100. If you care to accept that the vertical axis is simply percent absorbed, then the graph displays percent absorbed versus wavelength.

You have once again accused me of lying without presenting a shred of evidence. Show us the website which you claim says something different or withdraw your accusation or be known, at best, as someone with ethical shortcomings.

dude, I asked you to prove the spectrometer measures IR. Simple, go to the website of a vendor who makes them and that they advertise they do what you said. If you can't, then sir that makes you a liar. I don't know another term to describe dishonest behavior.

 

[Crick]

How many would you like jc? There are hundreds of such diagrams on the web.

 

[jc456]

How many would you like jc? There are hundreds of such diagrams on the web.

well then give me the link to the website of the manufacturer that posts this stuff. I'm not looking for what IR is, I'm asking for the proof the meter reads it the way you posted it.

BTW, you are 0 for so far. Makes you a liar.

 

[Crick]

dude, I asked you to prove the spectrometer measures IR. Simple, go to the website of a vendor who makes them and that they advertise they do what you said. If you can't, then sir that makes you a liar. I don't know another term to describe dishonest behavior.

You wish for proof that a spectrometer can measure spectral levels of infrared radiation? Jc, it's become obvious you haven't got jack shit. Show us the website you're talking about or apologize.

 

[Crick]

Let's see this miracle of your spectrometer. I read the instructions on line and it doesn't explain your statement as such. So are you lying?

WHERE did you read these instructions on line?

 

[jc456]

dude, I asked you to prove the spectrometer measures IR. Simple, go to the website of a vendor who makes them and that they advertise they do what you said. If you can't, then sir that makes you a liar. I don't know another term to describe dishonest behavior.

You wish for proof that a spectrometer can measure spectral levels of infrared radiation? Jc, it's become obvious you haven't got jack shit. Show us the website you're talking about or apologize.

dude,

you're such a liar. Never can you ever supply one piece of data to support your statements. I have asked a really simple question as a result of your post. That is to prove a spectrometer reads what you said. And that sir would take a statement from a manufacturer of one to prove your post. I don't need to prove anything. i merely stated i didn't see a website that backs up your statement. So I've asked you to lead me to the promised land.

 

[jc456]

Let's see this miracle of your spectrometer. I read the instructions on line and it doesn't explain your statement as such. So are you lying?

WHERE did you read these instructions on line?

dude, Look up spectrometer on the internet. you didn't do that? why that would be a mistake to make such a statement and not actually have used one. Let's simplify the question further, have you ever used one?